Comments about ‘In our opinion: The Patient CARE Act offers an alternative to ACA’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 2 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Salt Lake City, UT

"The PCA would allow greater flexibility for insurance companies to craft their products to meet the needs of their customers, allowing them to provide the kind of streamlined, less expensive plans that have been cancelled by the ACA." Of course allowing stripped down plans would make the granting of individual subsidies as allowed under the ACA, much more difficult, as you must know. On the basis of that alone I would reject the PCA.

Moreover, the House of Representatives won't pass the PCA. For example, the American Enterprise Institute finds it insufficiently "market oriented."

Salt Lake City, UT

From the article.

'..Hatch has proposed the Patient CARE Act, a more market-based approach to health care.'

In 2014.

Americans have been filing bankruptcy due to medical causes, since 1980.


Dollar short, and a day late.

America will not look for alternatives from the GOP, only AFTER Democrats created a solution.

Sandy, UT

This dnews editorial brought I mean bought and paid for by Orrin Hatch and the Republican party.

Salt Lake City, UT

Letting people keep junk policies is hardly a benefit... at least not for anyone who gets sick.

"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers. "

There is no reason to believe it'd lower costs to taxpayers, and you know why? One of the gripes about Medicare/Medicaid is the claim that it doesn't pay out enough. If it's not for profit, and is allegedly shortchanging hospitals/doctors, then it can't possibly be more expensive than private insurance. Public options just are cheaper, that's why the insurance lobby worked so hard to get rid of the public option from Obamacare.

Virginia Beach, VA

The Republicans are on the wrong side of history once again. Such is the nature of American

Before Democrats proposed the ACA, huge oligopolistic insurance companies had Republican legislators in their pockets, and Republican politicians gave NO THOUGHT at all to health care reform. Republican politicians were not about to stop a gravy train that had proven so lucrative to exploiters who funded their campaigns and otherwise lined the pockets of Republican "public servants."

Thus, Americans paid more money for health care than anywhere else in the world, and achieved only middling results. Republican Party leadership was by and large extremely happy with perpetuating a status quo that made chumps out of American citizens while enriching exploiters with close ties to Republican politics.

Democrats persevered in pushing through the ACA, while Republicans, who now hypocritically champion their own government-sponsored health care "alternative," screamed SOCIALISM.

Republicans should stop wasting time and resources, and actually do something for this nation instead of obstructing progress. More Americans now support the ACA than oppose it. The Repubs should just get on board and work to improve it, not replace it.

Virginia Beach, VA

"This latest snafu doesn’t come as a surprise to a nation weary of President Barack Obama’s signature health care legislation."

Not so.

Although Republicans are extremely slow in recognizing it, Americans are becoming more and more weary of Republican obstructionism and resistance to progress.

Haven't you Right Wingers begun to notice the huge gap between what you thought was true, and what is actually true?

No . . . FOX "NEWS" and Rush Limbaugh do not report the news. They simply reinforce your prejudices in an attempt to turn your misperceptions into a reality. They think they can create a bandwagon of misperception that a whole lot of people will want to jump on, thus creating a Republican voting majority and the desired reality.

It's not working though. Sensible people are jumping off by the thousands.

More people support than oppose the ACA, and if Republicans insist on challenging it, you might well lose seats in Congress . . . So just keep on doing what you're doing.

Republicans have certainly lost the trust of the more discerning Americans.

Poplar Grove, UT

So I just read on Senator Hatch's website his "proposal" but it doesn't actually say how the patient care act is going to work, it mainly seems to be saying that it's better than the ACA. But those 5 pages are not a plan, is there somewhere that you can find the actual plan, not a list of talking points that explains nothing.

Far East USA, SC

The Patient Care Act has not exactly been embraced by the GOP. If anything, it has been almost completely ignored.

The GOP base seems to have the belief that healthcare system in America has been working fine. It does not appear that they see any need to address or change it. That boggles my mind.

I will give Hatch and company credit for at least putting forth specific proposals. It is (or should be) a starting point for actual debate and far more constructive than just screaming REPEAL over and over.

As in many things, the first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem.

Midwest City, USA, OK

On the one hand "This is better than the ACA" isn't saying much; when you're throat-ramming something as clearly and knowingly divisive, immoral, and government-centered as obamacare, you know something is horribly wrong with it.

On the other hand, PCARE certainyl sounds like a decent alternative, assuming we're excluding the status quo. Then again, I haven't read it yet.


The Patient Care Act? Really? Even the House republicans won't touch that with a ten foot pole. They can't get it past their own party.

clearfield, UT

There should always be many alternatives to the ACA. Hopefully the ACA will end up being one of many options Americans will have to choose from for their medical care. Leave the ACA where it belonged, namely, for the presently uninsured who can't get insurance due to not having a job, or having an expensive pre-existing condition that private insurers won't take or will cost too much for the average citizen to pay for. That last, by the way, is the best part of the spirit of ACA. Whether it will be reality is yet to be seen. The last thing the ACA should become is a single payer/single provider system. That will end up with you getting your teeth pulled instead of having root canals and expensive crowns. Believe me, I lived in England for 2 years, and it is no myth about their bad and frequently missing teeth. All courtesy of the National Health Care system over there. Which if you don't have money, you're stuck with.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

We are almost midway through 2014.

Sorry repubs, this whole health care reform ship has already sailed.

Maybe you folks should have done something other than kick the can down the road when you had the power to actually do something for the American people (2000-08).

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

The only thing this American is wary of, is the maniacal obstructionism of the conservatives.

In spite of a gigantic mis-information campaign by the right, especially Koch Brother funded groups, the ACA has had close to 7 million people sign up. If the red states had been on board the number of sign-ups would be huge.

Liberals have led the way on civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, labor laws, etc. and in 5 years we will add the ACA to that list!

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Hatch's PCA is a scam. It taxes your insurance payments so you get nailed twice. It makes no provision for covering pre-existing conditions unless you've been "continuously insured." This is called a Catch-22: "We'll cover your condition, but only if you're already covered." That's a good one. Of course, it is April.....

salt lake city, UT

I read the DN to get a different perspective from the paper and it's readers. But, I am often amazed at how bias and decievious it's editorials are. Also, its puzzling how contrary posts are often rejected for using the same language and punctuation the paper itself uses. Concerning this editioral the writer quotes
"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers. The PCA approach would go a long way toward making Medicaid sustainable for future generations."
Excuse me, but that's exactly what the ACA does. It allows consumers to get guarenteed private insurance which increases the pool of users while lowering costs (that's what the research shows, we'll have to wait to see the data instead of relying on Faux News).
The DN's editorials often lack sound reasoning instead relying on emotionally based arguments that appeal to the communities conservative views. But we should expect better than that from our local paper and hold them to the same standards they impose on their readers who submit rebuttals.

Springville, UT

Let me say that this paper getting fully on the anti-Obama bandwagon is beyond disappointing. The ACA was passed for a reason. Take a look at the pages of your own paper. In today's online edition, there is a story of a young man in an auto accident who is facing massive medical costs. He was uninsured. This is what the ACA is trying to avoid. Please, connect the dots. Millions signed up, many waiting to the last minute which caused the system to falter. This is, in the end, success. Your snarky attacks serve no purpose. Turning to farcical bandaids as alternatives does not solve the problem. If you weren't so partisan and negative, you could encourage your readers to comply with the law of the land, and we can move forward with any fixes that the ACA could use. Perhaps a constructive attitude from this paper would be beneficial rather than falling into the slimmy mess of the haters. This paper owes its readers at least the semblance of adhering to the 12th Article of Faith inasmuch as you are the voice of your sponsor/owner.

Castle Rock, CO

"The PCA would allow Medicaid patients to get private insurance instead of government coverage, which would likely lower costs to taxpayers."

What??? Where has the editorial board of the Deseret News been for the past thirty years? Is it not amply clear that for profit insurance companies actually RAISE costs to consumers? Their entire business model is based on paying out the least amount for claims while raising premiums as high as they possibly can. Insurance companies' overhead is much higher than that of Medicare, for example--it costs money to pay those CEOs and advertise and fund their claims denial apparatus. So Medicare's overhead is something like 2-3% versus 10-20% for insurance companies.

Not to mention that if we look at the rest of the Western world, they basically all have single-payer systems (otherwise known as socialized medicine) and they offer universal coverage for HALF of what we spend.

So any movement to privatize more of our healthcare system will lead to higher costs, not lower costs.

Eugene, OR

You guys do realize that the ACA was signed into law four years ago, right? And upheld by the Supreme Court two years ago?

Maybe your wishful thinking will help Romney defeat President Obama while you're at it...

American Fork, UT

As much as you wanted, tried and encouraged the ACA to fail, it is not fitting that the website was glitchy on the last enrollment day. On the other hand, in spite of your efforts, and indeed fate and the efforts of those trying to make it work, it seems to be a success. Or at least heading in that direction. That's a lot better than what you're proposing, but not nearly close enough to the single payer system we need.

Syracuse, UT

The fact that once again under Hatch's proposal an individual could be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition is enough of a reason to toss this mess right in the garbage where it belongs. The time has come to improve on what we have, not start over. Republicans should get on board and help with that process or get out of the way.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments